MP3 uses a lossy compression algorithm that is designed to greatly reduce the amount of data required to represent audio recordings, yet still sound like faithful reproductions of the original uncompressed audio to most listeners. An ex. http://mp3knol.com digital file created using the mid-range bitrate setting of 128 kbit/s results in a file that is typically about 1/10th the size of the CD file created from the same audio source.

the file will be much bigger. if you are more concerned with the number of songs you can fit into a CD (or MP3/WMA player) rather than the quality of sound, i would vote for WMA instead of MP3. WMA sounds almost the same as MP3 enoded @128kb. remember that 128kbps is "Near-CD" quality so it should be good enough.

Most differences in audio quality become apparent to the listener who uses high-end audio equipment in a quiet, almost studio-like environment. Most people who use portable music players or PC apps of any flavor can't really discern the audio differences between WMA and MP3 @128Mb and other formats.

So quality aside, my preference is MP3, simply for the fact that we don't need Microsoft to set a standard, which will be used to choke every other standard out of existence.

For the ABSOLUTE best quality, use WMA Lossless. Your recording will sound EXACTLY like the original--guaranteed. However, 1 CDR will only be able to hold about 2 albums AND, some players that can play wma's cannot play wma lossless. My DVD player plays everything--it is even DivX certified, but it will not play lossless wmas. I think it doesn't like the variable bitrate. It can handle wma up to 192kbps without any problem, and mp3s up to 320kbps. It will play an mp3 variable bitrate, but not a wma variable.My 2 worth.

If you are hearing music through your dvd player, it's better you use cda which is the standard format in audio CDs.(if you have noticed)but, the computer can't read it as cda and will need to be ripped from the disc. When I buy an audio cd, if I have space or if I want extremely good audio, I use WAV or WMA, both are equally good. Else, I use MP3 at 320 Kbps.

If you intend to rip all your CDs, go all digital, and rid yourself of the whole CD thing, at some point you need to make a bit rate decision. When MP3 was the only choice, 128 being slightly above CD quality, was the compromise bit rate most folks finally went with; I did. So, having made the decision that 128 for MP3 is what you would go with if there were only MP3, lets move on NOW with our decision on which wins our favor MP3 or WMA.

WMA only needs 96 bit rate for comparable sound quality of a 128 bit MP3. So, based on this fact, if you choose to go with WMA 96 for all your files, you will save around half the disk space compared to the MP3 files at 128 that you would need to have comparable quality.

In this case, WMA wins hands down. Of course there are 49 dozen other scenarios that may tilt the decision to either side.

WMA 96 is equal to mp3 at 128 in sound quality, and is smaller in file size. WMA at 192 sounds as good as MP3 at 256. In ever test I have done wma has outpreformed mp3 the one advantage mp3 has is it's universal. but really above encoding rates of 192 it's damn hard to tell the difference (sometimes I have to watch the spectrum analyser to see the range of freq being reproduced) so mp3 and wma are pretty much the same (and for all those people who scream DRM, you dont have to encode with drm use the winamp encoder nstead of WMP). Plus with the huge hard drives hsipping with most computers space (except if you go lossless like FLAC or WMA lossless) isnt really an issue.

Everybody will probably say I'm crazy but I usually encode my CDs at 64kbps. Even though it says FM quality it sounds as good as the CD. I think on one CD I have around 24 hours of music. With the price of CDs so cheap and the time for burning a CD so short, it might be good to experiment to see what your own ears hear.

Two years ago, America's most popular computer magazine "PC Magazine" said that MP3 is the best audio format if its bitrate is high (128kbps). I'm sure that WMA is superior to MP3 if you consider its low-bitrate (less than 64kbps).

Therefore I admire MP3 for its audio quality, compatibility and stability. Besides 256kbps (stereo, NOT Joint-stereo or Mid-stereo) gives you great quality audio even if you listen with expensive equipments. At least, I don't recommend MP3@less than 160 kbps.

Joint stereo is a better option than pure stereo, it allows the codec more room to keep the file size down while maintaining quality, all codec developers recommend using it and any quality difference you hear between joint and pure stereo is probably psychosomatic.

My recommendation would be to use MP3 between 128k and 196k (VBR if its compatible with your player), but to make sure to use the LAME MP3 encoder rather than say, the built in Windows Media Player or iTunes ones.

The difference in quality you will get will be quite large from using a better encoder and LAME has the added bonus that it can be used with different software packs. I personally use Audiograbber, but DBpoweramp is also good.

Besides if you decide to build your music library on MP3 rather than another format you will be more sure of compatibility with future "toys" that you might buy.

It may not be the best but I use MP3. My son made files on his PC as WMA and then put them on his harddrive MP3 player. Even though the Player said it supported MP3 and WMA it hung up and would not play the WMAs. I deleted all of his WMAs and saved all of his music to MP3s. He has not had a problem since.

I have a CD player that can play MP3s. I can put about 10 hours on a CD and play it.

From a quality point WMA may be better, but in a car or walking around with an player there is so many other things that can impact the sound I do not see where it makes much of a differance.

Excellent feedback - thanks to all!I'm going to spend my Saturday playing around with this stuff. My first experiment, and starting point, will be ripping tracks from my original CD collection, saving them as WMA's at windows media player "variable bit rate". I'll check how they sound and how many I can fit on a cd. If I don't like it and want to try other options as discussed in this forum I am now somewhat educated on the topic and will try the great ideas kindly offered.That's why I grabbed some re-writeable cd's ! On to the experiment....

i personally feels that MP3 is better option in terms of, whether sound Quality or size. MP3 has much broader bandwidth for bit rate starting from 128 to 256. I am having wonderfull speakers and soundcard in my PC. The real joy i feel by listening in windows media player 10 version with SRS Lab's technology built-in. I heard both WMA and MP3, the line of distinction in terms of quality is sometimes negligible and sometimes striking (depending upon the bit rate). I am also having sony MP3 car audio that makes more enhanced clarity.

If you have the hard drive space or a DVD burner, consider ripping your CDs to FLAC first. This way, ID tag info is preserved when you later convert it to MP3, etc, and you get an exact copy of the original CD in about half the size.The reason for ripping to FLAC first is because converting from one lossy format to another degrades sound quality, and converting from FLAC to a lossy format (MP3, WMA)is faster than re-ripping from the original CD. With all your CD's archived in FLAC, If you decide later that you'd rather have all your music in a different format, say ogg vorbis or WMA, you will save yourself a lot of time and trouble by not having to re-rip or re-edit ID3 tags.

I do not know whther the same holds for an MP3 CDRW, but you can ask the maker.

The other writers who said 128kbps = CD quality were wrong. 160kbps does. I encode at 192 variable bitrate because the encoder (WAV to MP3) then uses the 160 for easy simple sections of music and 192 for the more complex parts say mutiple instruments. It's a minor space saver. So the bottom rate is 160. I need that level of quality.

Someones point re your car's noise is relevant -- it can mask the sound and so you can not appreciate the extra quality.

The guy who said he encodes at 64kbps revolted me, but he is RIGHT for him -- it is always an individual experience. (It is also more likely that a greater percentage of people will agree with the richer sound. Mr 64kbps should get a precautionary hearing check, or maybe a car tuneup.)

Actually 128kbps is generally acknowledged as cd quality. I have a cd player that supports mp3, and an mp3 player. For my cd player I use Sonys Atrac3plus file format. The Atrac3plus utilizes optimal bit allocation to compress an mp3 or wma to one twentieth its original size while retailing all sound quality. Using this I can shove over 500 4 minute songs on 1 cd at 64kbps, or even more at 48kbps or lower. For my 256mb mp3 player I compress mp3s to 32kbps wma single channel(mono), which gives you twice the quality of 32kbps stereo. In this way I am able to fit 300 songs onto a 256mb mp3 player. This is fine, because if you can tell the difference between 160kbps, and 192kbps mp3, wma, or whatever in any normal listening envirnment, you should have your ears examined.

It all depends on the ear of the listener. I've done audio tests with audio CDs and mp3s encoded all the way up to 320kbps. On my tests (and I made sure they were blind tests), I could always tell the CD audio from the mp3 file. The only time I couldn't tell the difference was between cd audio and wma lossless. To me, the compressed file sounds like a facsimile when compared to the original.

If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.

Track this thread and email me when there are updates.Please read before posting

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

Old Thread Warning!

This thread is more than days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and replying to it will serve no purpose. However, if you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so.

I am aware that this thread is old, but I still want to post a reply.

Checkbox must be checked in order to post in this old thread.

Sorry, there was a problem submitting your post. Please try again.

Sorry, there was a problem generating the preview. Please try again.

Duplicate posts are not allowed in the forums. Please edit your post and submit again.